Willard discussed my ideas about the illusion of choice and says:
>Fortunately, John gives us a way out of this quandary. He says,
>
>"If our understanding changes, you can be sure we'll do something else
>that is consistent with that new understanding. That's how things work.
>Our gift is being able to know that."
>
>That is in fact the gift; the gift of choice. As soon as I become aware
>that I am a prisoner of my paradigms and that to get different results I
>will have to have differnet paradigms, I can make a conscious choice.
>That choice is to understand (or not) what paradigm would I have to have
>in order to get the results I want. I then have a choice (maybe not) to
>do (or not to do) what I have to do to create that paradigm in myself.
I don't agree, given my paradigm, that there is the gift of choice.
Because I am the prisoner of my paradigm and know it, it doesn't mean I
can escape any more than a real prisoner can will himself out of a real
prison. We cannot choose what paradigm we will believe. You cannot will
yourself to understand something differently from how you understand it
right now. But, in knowing this, your paradigm, your understanding of the
world right now, may suggest to you that you need to learn more about
something, you need to gather more information, get more experience, seek
insight. So, given this point of view, this understanding of what you
don't know, your natural behavior is to go gather more information, seek
new experience, learn more about yourself. You couldn't do otherwise.
This wouldn't be a choice in this; it's just what you would do. It would
be consistent with a paradigm that suggests that learning is good and that
we must contribute to and help shape the change we are part of in a
positive manner.
Willard goes on to say:
>I find that this new creators' space is a rich universe to explore.
>Because in this space, you would continually explore to discover what
>paradigm you would have to have in order to get the results you want, and
>then you would do what you have to do to create that paradigm in yourself.
>
>For you fractalites, do you get the idea that this is a pattern
>(continually explore to discover what paradigm you would have to have in
>order to get the results you want) and a rule of connectivity (then you
>would do what you have to do to create that paradigm in yourself)? Do you
>also see that iterating this pattern would continually lead you to new
>points in the phase space but never back to the same point because as soon
>as you have a shifted paradigm you can't go back. So exploring the phase
>space of paradigms provides us richness in our lives.
>
>Now I see that their must be some connection between the victim's phase
>space and the creator's phase space. Otherwise the victim could never get
>to the creator's pahse space. Aha! As the victim interacts with the
>environment (people and things), a phase shifter (paradigm shifter) is at
>work. When the student is ready a teacher will appear.
>
>Hmmmmmmmmmmmm. I'm not quite sure what phase space I'm in right now, but
>it sure is fun (Bernie and Tobin please take note).
Willard is quite correct here. The creator's paradigm and the victim's
paradigm are based on the same set of principles, our world becomes, for
us, consistent with our view of it. (You may have seen me write
occasionally "the world is exactly like we think it is, and that's why."
Now you know why I say that.) If I see myself as a victim, I will act like
a victim and I will reap the unhappiness that goes with victimhood (ummm,
I don't think I would like that). If I see myself as a creator, I will
behave in ways consistent with that and reap the good feelings and other
results that come from that.
I look around at nature, I see that change is constant, that I influence
that change (and can't avoid that), and I say to myself, I better work at
influencing that change in a way that is good for me. I also see that
since I'm part of the rest of the world, doing good for me means
contributing positively to the changing world, not consciously hurting it.
And given this understanding, I could not do otherwise. I know that my
behavior represents my adaptation to the world. I also understand that by
adapting to the world, I am creating that world at the same time. That's
going to affect the quality of my adaptation, and I will behave in ways to
create a better world for myself, which means for others at the same time.
In Argyris's terms, I think this means contributing in a generative rather
than a reactionary fashion.
And again, I would suggest that such points as raised here form the
foundation (for me) of Senge's work, Argyris's work, and, really, that of
every writer who is exploring human nature to understand successful
behavior.
-- John Woods jwoods@execpc.com